A Historical Greek Earthquake-Tsunami Event May Not Have ...

What’s Happening

Alright so Learn why blindly relying on historical records of seismic events without confirmation can lead to an incorrect characterization of an earthquake for decades.

Sometimes, it just takes one researcher picking up on a single inconsistency to uncover how an earthquake long believed to be one of the most devastating in Greece’s history was most likely not as dramatic as before thought. Analyzing old newspaper reports and one traveler’s writings, a scientist from the Hellenic Mediterranean University showed that the records of the 1843 earthquake on the island of Chalke, reported as a magnitude 6. (wild, right?)

4 quake, followed by a tsunami and a death toll of 600 people, need to be updated.

The Details

A new study, published in Seismological Research Letters , will most likely lead to a change in seismic risk calculations for the region, proving that keeping accurate historical records is critical for risk management today. No Tsunami or Casualties Found During 1843 Earthquake Associate researcher at the Institute of Physics of the Earth’s Interior & Geohazards at the Hellenic Mediterranean University in Greece, Ioanna Triantafyllou, kicked off working on Greece’s most impactful earthquakes in 2017, with a particular interest in the 1843 quake in Chalke, a small Greek island close to Rhodes.

Long believed to be one of the top 10 deadliest earthquakes in the country to date, official records describe the incident as having a magnitude between 6. 75, followed by a tsunami , and claiming more than 600 lives.

Why This Matters

This surprised Triantafyllou, making her wonder how such a small island nearly 200 years ago could have had such a high death toll. That question prompted her to search for primary and original historical sources that would confirm the number of victims, she dropped in a press release . Taking a closer look at previous studies spilled that the authors didn’t include any primary macroseismic information — reports on how people, buildings, and the visible environment were affected.

The scientific community tends to find developments like this significant.

The Bottom Line

Taking a closer look at previous studies spilled that the authors didn’t include any primary macroseismic information — reports on how people, buildings, and the visible environment were affected. To set the record straight, Triantafyllou tracked down contemporary primary sources not included , painting a different picture of the events.

How do you feel about this development?